The polls are suggesting a huge shift in the electorate. Are they right? | Politico
politico.com
It’s a significant reversal from recent history: President Joe Biden is struggling with young voters but performing better than most Democrats with older ones.
You are viewing a single comment
Just because people don't support Biden doesn't mean they're voting for Trump. This is a false dichotomy.
Unfortunately, that’s the nature of US elections. Maybe one day it’ll change, but for now these are the only votes that will carry through the Electoral College.
FWIW I’d love to see us remove the Electoral College, abolish Gerrymandering, and implement ranked-choice voting to introduce more parties to the table.
then they arent really democratic are they
It’s a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The founders created the Electoral College to assist in elections due to lack of nationwide information on the candidates. That’s clearly not an issue anymore.
yeah, if the parties are putting out only two candidades that people hate, maybe thats not a good idea
The National Committees (DNC and RNC) produce the candidates.
All you Blue MAGA folks pretend like their aren't any candidates with basic human decency running for president. Guess what? I have my choice of three candidates who have at least a bare minimum of human decency. And you have three candidates who support genocide. You make your choice; I'll make mine.
What?
Are you talking about the primaries? I'm like 99.9999% sure they all dropped out. You're stuck with Trump and we're stuck with Biden.
I'm talking about the general
I’m not suggesting you make a different choice than the two. I’m stating that it will not affect US elections in their current structure. You do you.
Scribbling over that section of the ballot is also a distinct choice you have. That would affect the outcome just as much as voting third party.
"Blue MAGA." It's wild how far-right actors have the self-awareness to write "Blueanon" or "Blue MAGA." Cool to see their strategies are working and the term is getting picked up with other groups.
Unfortunately, there are only TWO choices in the 2024 election - you are either voting for democracy or dictatorship - period
When is the democracy supposed to start?
No, you're either voting for genocide or human decency - period.
Genocide AND human decency VS an end to democracy and just not caring about anyone outside the border short of a migrant caravan.
I think you left off the part of the second candidate encouraging more genocide along with ending democracy.
Not encouraging, just not standing in the way of it happening.
no one is promising to end democracy
Didn't one candidate say they would literally be a dictator..."but only on day one." I find it hard to trust anyone who ways they'd be a dictator any amount of time, and then stop. Dictatorship and democracy are polar opposites.
with the rise of executive power from executive orders, every president is a dictator say one, rolling back previous administration policy and implementing their own.
That's not what a dictatorship is. A dictatorship is where one person (the dictator) has almost complete control over the government with few, if any, restrictions. Executive orders can only be within the President's authority, and can also be overturned by Congress or the Supreme Court. To link executive orders to a dictatorship shows a misunderstanding of executive orders, dictatorships, or both.
Also, in the quote of being a "dictator for just one day," executive orders were not mentioned, if I remember correctly. And no democratic President should ever think of themselves as a dictator or wish they were one.
no one is accusing trump of being a knowledgeable statesman.
That was actually you who linked them, not him. And they shouldn't be linked. Executive orders are not a dictatorship. But let's say he meant, even though he's famous for saying what he means with no filter.
Even after campaigning for it, holding the office for 4 years, presumably keeping an eye on his successor for 4 years, and now campaigning for it again? You'd think he'd know the basics of what is a democracy, what is a dictatorship, what executive orders do, and what do the different branches of government roughly do...you know, the basics that were taught in middle school, and elaborated on in high school. These aren't niche laws or obscure cases we're talking about, but what should be common sense to the common man...much more so for someone who's running for the job. Willful ignorance is not an excuse, especially at that level...if that's what this is.
they are literally creating policy by dictate. your pet definition seems crafted to exclude this obvious use of dictate.
Someone who "dictates" is not necessarily a dictator. These are not my "pet definitions" but accepted definitions of what a dictator/dictatorship is in the political sphere. It's called context.
No one in the government should say "I'm going to dictate policy that I have control over, but this policy can be overturned by the other two branches. Thus, I'm a dictator." That's not what that word means. You are trying to use a nonspecific definition out of context to justify defending a wannabe dictator.
can you substantiate this claim, that governing by dictate is not an accepted definition"in the political sphere". while we're on it, what do you define as "the political sphere"?
Because it's context. No, I don't think there's an official "when talking about X, only this definition of this word can mean this" book. But I honestly feel like you're arguing in bad faith or being obtuse on purpose. For example, I feel like you're arguing "a bad story came out about republicans...how do we know they meant members of the GOP? One definition is "favoring, supporting, or advocating a republic," so just maybe they're talking about people who like the game (or characters in) Star Wars: The Old Republic... that's about republics, and they never mentioned party...now that we're on about parties, maybe they meant a rave?"
If you're not doing that on purpose, let me assure you that when people are talking about a leader of a government (as the President is) and the word "dictator" comes up about them, no one ever means merely someone who dictates. They always mean leader of a dictatorship.
Relating to politics, especially members of/in charge of politics.
Insurrecting against a country because they voted for someone else is a pretty solid promise on its own.
Wait, which candidate in your analysis is the candidate representing human decency?
Jill Stein, Cornel West, De La Cruz
Only one of two people is going to win. It’s about as true of a dichotomy as you can get in politics. Your other option is to throw away your vote, which is the same as not voting.
There are at least six people running. Three are running on the genocide platform, three are running on the human decency platform. It's about as true of a dichotomy as you can get in politics.
Two of those people have a chance at winning. Four of those people have a chance at splitting the vote enough that the other of the two wins.
I don’t like that that’s how our system is. It’s fucked. But that is how our system is.
He's like a dude playing the lotto. "Well either I win or I don't, that's two possible outcomes... 50/50 chance."
One of them is actively aiding an ongoing genocide. You are shilling for them. I hope you sleep well at night
If living in this reality means I’m a shill, then I guess I’m a shill. How much do you want to bet me that someone other than Biden or Trump will win? If you’re willing to bet anything on that, then you’re a damned fool.
I’m sorry that we don’t live in your fantasy world where we actually do have another choice. It sounds nice there. But since we live in the real world, you have two choices. Biden or Trump. Since Trump is actually a fascist who wants to end democracy in the United States, I’ll be voting for Biden, thanks.